Appeal No. 2000-1526
Application No. 08/902,196
We will summarily sustain this rejection, first, because the examiner’s
observation regarding the lack of proper antecedent bases appears to be correct and,
second, because appellants have chosen not to present any arguments regarding this
rejection [see the top of page 8 of the brief].
Turning now to the rejection of claims 31-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, we will also sustain this rejection.
It is the examiner’s position that there is inadequate support for the now claimed
recitations of “the acoustic output signal is a calibrated acoustic output signal such that
different ones of the test apparatus produce substantially identical test results” and “a
combined frequency response of the magnetic drive unit and the signal processing
circuitry is substantially linear when the magnetic drive has the specified characteristic.”
The test for written description, in accordance with Vas-Cath Inc. V. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d
1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983) is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventors had
possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter. It is also true that an
invention claimed need not be described ipsis verbis in the specification in order to
satisfy disclosure requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Ex parte Holt, 19 USPQ2d 1211,
1213 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int.1991).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007